The quoting in the previous message wasn't very good, and it may not have
been clear who wrote what. John Fiscella wrote:

>I would go further than that: if the font contains *any* properly named
>composite glyph, that it should be used in place of a base glyph +
>combining mark glyph representing normalized text, *even if the composite
>glyph is not encoded in Unicode/10646*. Such is the beauty of a parseable
>standard glyph naming scheme.

To which I replied:

There are plenty of TrueType fonts -- including many Asian fonts -- with
version 3.0 'post' tables that do not contain glyph names.